Disunited Kingdom - Devolution and English Votes

Those of us who thought a ‘No’ vote in Scotland would bring the constituent parts of the United Kingdom closer together have been proven wrong, with the disunity now almost as bad as it would have been for a ‘Yes’ win.

In Scotland the ‘Yes’ campaign has organised itself into a group called The 45, demanding international moderators to recount the referendum votes, because apparently Scotland is similar to Afghanistan, and a boycott of the companies who said they would leave Scotland in the event of independence.

The more sensible groups have joined together to demand Westminster follows through on more devolved powers, but they have hit a strange road-block, the English, who are now demanding more powers for England and an answer to the so-called West Lothian question.

For starters, the Westminster parties have to follow through with the pledge of more powers, but simultaneously The 45 have to let this process take its course and accept another independence vote cannot happen for at least a decade or two.

Secondly, this idea of English votes for English laws needs to be thought about very carefully, because, although it is a good idea, there are some major issues surrounding it which often go overlooked.

What is the West Lothian Question?

The West Lothian question is a term coined in 1977 to describe the problem of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Westminster MPs voting with equal powers on English topics, while English MPs had less authority over issues in the other parts of the UK.

Since then there have been sustained calls for ideas like a separate English parliament or banning MPs from outside England voting on solely English issues.

So What’s the Problem?

Well unfortunately for the current party leaders there are lots of them, which is why this has never been truly sorted out.

There are three main options to solve the West Lothian question and the legislative and spending vacuum in England, but all have huge flaws.

Option One – English Parliament

The idea here is all four countries making up the UK would have their own separate parliament which would decide how to spend the money allocated by the central government, while Westminster would focus on federal issues like budgeting and national defence.

This would involve the formation of an English parliament, which would please people as it involves moving power away from Westminster and would mean English politicians would make decisions for the English.

However, this is where the good news stops.

For this to work all parliaments, including the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies, would have to be equal in power, however, there are historical and political reasons why the Northern Irish Assembly is unlikely to get or ask for more powers, while the nationalist movement in Wales is far weaker than north or the border.

It also creates an executive in London, which means there will be two-tiered politicians leading to power struggles or circumvention of the voters if governments are struggling to pass measures.

The English parliament would also become the strongest, purely because of the numbers it represents, which undermines the point of the exercise, while it also leaves central government open to being ganged-up on by a collective of national representatives.

Another issue is what has already been seen in Scotland, where MSPs can promise whatever they like and if they fail to deliver or do not follow through at all, they can get away with blaming the evil Westminster establishment and this could easily happen in an English parliament as well.

Lastly, this creates more politicians, more bureaucracy, more salaries, more expenses, more in-fighting, all of the things the general public want politicians to move away from.

So while this idea fits the bill in terms of answering the West Lothian question and makes politics more local, it has some huge flaws which could make it less efficient, less democratic and less accountable.

Option 2 – English MPs for English Votes

This idea is less complicated and essentially would mean English MPs would meet one or two days a week to vote on issues affecting England without their colleagues from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Avoiding additional politicians, parliaments and in-fighting, while allowing varying devolved powers, this would seem like a good idea, but again it is fundamentally flawed.

Firstly, it creates disharmony at a time when Scotland has just voted to reject independence and unwittingly creates a two-tiered system of MPs where those from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be second class.

This also means it would be unlikely a Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish person would ever become Prime Minister or even a party leader.

Another issue all too rarely pointed out is there are actually very few issues put before Westminster which only effect the English, while this solution to the problem would make the process more inefficient by putting aside days for debates without the full house.

The fact is England has always been the centre of the union, with decisions made in Westminster emanating from England to the other member states, so in reality, while England does have its own government departments there are very few issues which only have an impact on the English.

There is also a huge political problem which makes this solution unlikely as it benefits the Conservatives and punishes Labour because Labour have MPs in Wales and Scotland, while the Tories have not.

This would mean it would be harder for a Labour party to pass laws relating to England, encouraging them to circumvent the Westminster executive, or allow the Conservatives to deliberately hold-up any Labour proposals and force through partisan measures when in power.

All in all, while this seems like a relatively good solution, politically it is unlikely to happen and, even if it did, just keeps power centrally which is not popular with the electorate, not to mention it discriminating against Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs with loftier ambitions.

Option 3 – Regional Devolution

A halfway house between options one and two is to devolve powers from Westminster to the regions of the UK, taking the form of county or regional assemblies or elected city mayors.

This idea certainly solves a few issues as it gives increased power over spending to local areas, without creating second class MPs, while allowing varying degrees of devolved powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The question of what to do about Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs in Westminster voting on English matters still remains, but is certainly reduced as they would have no power over how the money is used, just how it is distributed.

However, the problem is the voters do not seem interested in this idea.

Elected mayors were proposed in a number of cities recently, but the desire for them from the electorate was muted at best.

Similarly, when elected police commissioners were introduced it resulted in the lowest ever turnout for a UK election.

There is an argument the failure of city mayors and regional police commissioners was because they were given no real power and the measures were only promoted by third rate politicians, but then again the London Assembly is a bit of a red herring, but this has not stopped Boris Johnson being an effective ambassador for the capital.

However, the biggest issue here is England already has this to some extent with local, parish, district and county councils, which have the power to raise and spend money as well as petition central government and local people about issues.

It is all well and good claiming England needs more representation, in fact it probably does, but the systems are already in place, but are simply not used properly.

What is the point in creating a brand-new parliament for England, or fiddling with the constitution over what MPs can vote on what bills, when councils are already in place to supposedly represent local people?

David Cameron and, more precisely, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles promoted at the last election something called ‘The Big Society’ where local administrations would take on more responsibility.

This idea is the very epitome of what the people are supposedly asking for and yet when the people are asked they do not turn out to have their voice heard.

Conclusions

What has to be accepted is there are two very separate issues here. First, devolved powers to the Scottish parliament and secondly, increased powers for England.

These two issues must be dealt with separately and on different timetables.

Scotland deserves more power over how money and resources are allocated in Scotland and this must be announced within the announced timetable, if not then the calls for independence will only get louder and more problematic.

MPs of all parties must work together to finalise what powers will be controlled by Holyrood for the benefit of a united kingdom.

However, England must wait for its future to be decided and so must the West Lothian question.

It makes far more sense for English devolution to form part of next year’s General Election campaign, rather than being rushed through in the heat of the moment during the highly politically charged time in the run-up to next May.

Why should England wait? Because this is a difficult topic to deal with.

As shown above, all three of the primary ideas have massive problems which need to be addressed, but these need to be dealt with in the respect of history and tradition.

England has always been the centre of the United Kingdom. This is not bloviating, it is a result of history and with this in mind, coupled with the party political stumbling blocks, makes curbing voting powers for non-English Westminster MPs difficult.

The historical background has meant laws and financing has emanated from England to the other countries of the union, meaning there are very few English-only issues put before parliament.

Another question is what do the English people actually want, because in the past regional powers have been on the table, but have not been accepted by the voters.

Rather than this haphazard cobbling together of a plan the Conservatives are undertaking, why should the English not have their own referendum tagged to the General Election ballot about what kind of regional devolved government they would like along with a proper discussion of the issues.

This is an important issue, both north and south of the border, but it cannot be solved in two minutes.

Scotland’s pro-independence movement must settle down and allow the dialogue to come up with a sensible plan within the timetable and the English should think hard about what exactly it is they want and accept it is not going to happen tomorrow.

The Big Picture and the Bigger Questions

If the polls are to be believed there is a very real possibility Scotland might vote for independence on September 18^th, but is this just another example of people ignoring the big picture?

For starters, let’s make one thing clear, this poll is actually pretty meaningless and does not under any circumstances mean an independent Scotland is on the cards.

Yes, the gap is much narrower than it was a month ago, but the lack of polling (there were more polls in Clacton in the week following Carswell’s defection than in Scotland in the past three weeks) means the margin of error for a one off poll like this is colossal.

However, what is undeniable is the Yes campaign is picking up momentum and is bridging what was seemingly an unbridgeable gap.

So how has this happened?

Essentially it comes down to the same thing which has dogged politics for many years, an ignorance 

of the big picture.

Alex Salmond has the better sound-bites, the opportunity to invoke the memory of William Wallace and play on people’s natural patriotism, but fails to address and (more to the point) has not been forced to address the really big questions.

Can Scotland be an independent country? Of cause it can. It has the people and resources to survive outside of the UK, this is undeniable, but this is the wrong question to ask.

The Isle of Wight could be an independent nation, but that does not mean it is in its best interests.

The real question is whether or not Scotland would be better off outside the UK and how would it achieve this, but time and time again Alex Salmond, the SNP and the pro-independence campaign has failed to answer the serious questions and essentially these questions are all economic.

What currency will Scotland use? Mr Salmond still insists an independent Scotland will use the pound and refuses to come up with a plan b, despite being told multiple times this is not going to happen and yet nobody seems to care.

It might not seem important what currency is in your pocket as long as you can spend it, but in fact it matters a lot, not to the person on the street, but to the businesses that employ the person on the street, Scottish exporting companies and those potential investors in Scotland.

If you want an indication of how important the currency is then all you have to look at is the effect the tightening polls had on trading value of sterling.

Will Scotland join the European Union? Again, Mr Salmond claims an independent Scotland would aim to join the EU, but has not answered the question of how long it would take to complete this process.

The EU has already stated Scotland would have to join the back of the queue, meaning the process could take many, many years, but has Mr Salmond addressed this, no.

What about North Sea oil? Mr Salmond’s claims of fiscally security are entirely based on North Sea oil being owned by an independent Scotland, but quite frankly his calculations are at best questionable, at worst deluded.

On the NHS, Mr Salmond has made the even more elementary mistake of claiming to be able to provide well-funded public services while lowering tax, the greatest and most consistent lie ever told by politicians.

While it is not fair to place all of these failures at the door of Mr Salmond, what we have ended up with is an argument over Scotland being governed by Westminster, not a debate over how an independent Scotland would survive.

All those in the No camp, Better Together campaign, Westminster establishment and Conservative party, have, in retrospect, made a mess of the referendum by taking victory for granted and assuming the serious arguments would win over the day.

But herein lays the problem, not just with the Scottish independence referendum, but politics in general. The big picture does not matter.

The same thing has been seen with the other popular ardent nationalist, Nigel Farage.

While the long-standing MEP and his party have enjoyed strong support, rising poll numbers, an election victory and look set to win its first Westminster representative, all sides of the anti-EU argument are yet to answer the big-picture questions.

Yes, the UK could survive outside the EU, after all it did for practically all of its history, but this drowns-out the greater issue of is the UK stronger outside the EU.

Like Mr Salmond, Mr Farage has all the good sound-bites and poetic licence for Churchillian oratory, but scratch the surface and his plans are at best half-baked.

At no point have UKIP outlined how the UK would go about leaving the EU, how long it would take to renegotiate trade deals, addressed the opposition to leaving the EU from parts of the business community, assessed the impact on the estimated 4 million jobs linked to European trade, or discussed why companies like Hitachi, Siemens, Nissan and Honda all state the UKs membership of the EU as a significant factor for investing in this country.

Yet again, all the really big questions are not nationalistic, but economic. Ordinary people want jobs and, more importantly, secure jobs and it is unclear if any job in Scotland would be secure if there was a yes vote, in the same way jobs would be at risk if the UK left the EU.

However, the most frustrating thing here is this comes down to an ignorance and apathy, not among the career politicians, but the voters.

The reason politicians like Mr Salmond, Mr Farage and many others (including the leaders of the three main Westminster parties) can get away with dodging the issues is because we as voters let ourselves be conned into believing it is possible to have the best of both worlds, when in fact it almost never possible.

Voters often complain about the quality of politicians on offer, but perhaps we are to blame for this because we demand so little of those we elect.

If you want any evidence of this then look no further than Scotland, where they might be about to put Mr Salmond in charge, despite the fact he cannot tell Scots what currency they will be using.

The general public are short-termists by nature. We are not prepared to wait for a decade to see improvements, we need to see them now, which in a democratic political world is never going to happen.

However, if a voter was going out to buy a new mobile phone they would not make up their mind based on incomplete facts, they would do their research and find the best deal and this is the way we should deal with politics.

Your decision of who to cast your ballot for should not be rushed, but considered and should take into consideration the facts available at the time, not opinions, but facts.

If we continue to fail to look at the bigger picture this cycle of second rate politicians filling their own pockets at the people’s expense will never end and as nations we will continue to fall behind because of it.

Perhaps we should turn to the worlds of fictional President Josiah Bartlett “we can do better, and we must do better, and we will do better, and we will start this moment today.”

Trading With China – As Good As It Seems?

We are constantly being told how important trade with China is and never has this issue more prevalent than this week with the visit of Chinese premier Li Kequiang, but can there really only be an upside to dealing with the world’s second largest economy?

Mr Li came to London with apparently £17 billion in his back pocket in the form of infrastructure deals and other investments in exchange for…we are not sure yet, but visa restrictions are being relaxed to encourage Chinese businessmen.

The way politicians speak you would naturally assume there are only massive plus points for the UK increasing its trading partnerships with China.

In fact UK trade with China has, according to the Chinese ambassador to the UK Liu Xiaoming, increased nearly 14% in the last year, faster than any other EU country.

Yes Mr Farage, that’s right. The UK has increased its trade with China, like that economic powerhouse of Iceland, whilst still part of the EU.

However, it should under no circumstances be assumed this is all good news and in fact closer Sino-UK trading ties should be treated very delicately.

Firstly China is a massive producer, but is not yet a nation of consumers.

Yes, UK companies exported more than £12bn of goods and services in 2013, but the UK imported well over £30bn and this is very dangerous.

With the World Cup currently in progress, Brazil has been a central to the news recently and is a great example of a country which has not benefitted from Chinese imports, despite the country investing in South America.

The Brazilian market has been flooded with cheap Chinese merchandise which has put many domestic producers out of businesses and this is a trend seen in many other countries, not least in America.

In exchange Brazil and many other developing nations in Africa and South America were supposed to benefit both socially and economically from infrastructure deals completed by the Chinese.

However, what ended up happening was a Sinification of public services where the only winners where the Chinese state owned companies who pillaged the land for natural resources in exchange for construction projects carried out by workers from China, not locals.

At a time when America is issuing arrest warrants for Chinese computer hacking of military and commercial computers is this really a nation you want to invite into your country to build a new generation of nuclear power plants and high speed railways?

Human rights also matter…a lot.

Contrary to the opinion of Tory minister Michael Fallon, who said human rights dialogue should not get in the way of trade deals, the way a country treats its people does matter.

How is China able to be competitive on the world stage? Quite simple really. The workers in China are basically treated as slave labour so there are no production costs.

This is how they are able to sell things around the world at knock down prices.

Yes, human rights violations and trade are two separate topics, but there has to be bilateral action to tackle both topics as they are both intrinsically linked.

Until China agrees to play by the same trading rules as everyone else it will always benefit disproportionally more than other countries.

Massive state owned monopolies dominate the industry, there are no health and safety costs, no minimum wage, at best rudimental free markets, pretty much non-existent environmental controls and massive violation of international copyrights.

Pollution levels are appalling and a blatant public health risk and yet there is no effort in China to curb the rapid increase in consumption of carbon based fuels.

Most importantly however, the Chinese currency is still not openly traded.

For years the value of the Yuan, or Renminbi, was pegged to the dollar and it is only in very recent years any effort at all has been made to open up this market.

This makes China unnaturally competitive, especially against the large economies of America and Europe.

The combination of all the aforementioned factors is especially dangerous for the UK and Europe, economies which produce high value products, in particular cars.

China desperately wants to export more vehicles to the US and EU, however Europe is also home to some of the world’s biggest and best car manufacturers.

In the past China has less than subtly ripped off European designs and the cars produced in the country would never pass EU safety standards and crash tests, not to mention they can be produced at remarkably low costs thanks to state funding and what is essentially slave labour.

With many car companies, particularly from Japan, setting up manufacturing bases in the UK and the likes of BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen, Audi and Ferrari based on the continent it is in our interests to protect the car industry.

While it is undeniably important to increase trade and diplomatic ties with the world’s second largest economy, it is equally important to remember dealing with China has the potential to be a very one sided affair, as many countries in Africa have discovered to their detriment.

Political Warfare - The Battle of Newark

Following UKIPs historic victory in the European elections all of the noise was surrounding the so called political earthquake, but before the results were even in those who understand how the British electoral system works had already turned our attention somewhere else.

Our focus instantly switched to a small town North East of Nottingham on the River Trent, to the constituency of Newark.

While the purples success in the race to Brussels was expected, getting seats in Westminster has proved problematic for them, not least because of the first-past-the-post system (don’t blame me I voted for AV).

However, with their current undeniable momentum Newark offers an interesting opportunity for them and the polls suggest they could do well, but with the circus now firmly focuses on the midlands this is going to be no ordinary by-election.

Under normal circumstance this would be a forgone conclusion with a massive Conservative majority, but following the resignation of Patrick Mercer in a lobbying scandal there is potential for an upset.

The first poll out of Newark by Survation suggests the Tory’s are winning with 36%, UKIP second on 28%, just ahead of Labour on 27%.

With a week to go, a lot of media attention and the election machines in full swing this is not set in stone and the outcome is far from guaranteed

But regardless of who wins the result is going to be interesting, so what will end up happening?

Con Hold – By far the most likely outcome, but by how much they win will be a telling factor.

It is unlikely they will extend or even get a similar majority, but this was to be expected following the nature of the former MPs resignation.

However, a strong performance with an eight point margin (as the current polls suggest) would be a great result even if a lot of ground would have been lost, while a four point win would be more than acceptable.

This would allow the Conservatives the chance to claim UKIP are not a national force and the government’s economic policies are benefiting the British people, but all this assumes it stays roughly the same.

Con Hold, but only just – With UKIP and Labour snapping at the Conservatives heals the result could be a lot tighter than currently predicted.

If the Tory’s win by just a couple of points then the pressure to address the UKIP issue and the fact they are hurting the blues more than the reds will only mount on David Cameron.

However, the person under the most pressure might be Nigel Farage as it could be argued his personality could possibly have tipped UKIP over the top and gained them their first Westminster representative.

UKIP Win – Given the conservative leanings of the constituency this is probably the second most likely outcome after a Tory win and would signal the earthquake promised by Mr Farage.

It is going to take a big swing and it is unlikely UKIP candidate Roger Helmer will be able to bridge the gap given his age and previously expressed opinions on certain issues, most recently the weekends newspaper story about his views on the disproved theory of gay conversion therapy.

Similarly, the Conservatives have more backing and greater experience in running these campaigns so it would be difficult for UKIP to overturn the lead.

This said the Tory’s are down 18% on 2010 and most of this seems to be going to UKIP so in fact all that is required is a four point swing to the purples and we could have a UKIP MP.

Labour Win – Very unlikely, but with UKIP splitting the Tory vote then it is possible. This would be a massive win for Ed Miliband and the red team, who last won Newark in the 1997 landslide.

Overall second place, or a close third would be a relatively successful day for the red corner. The problems only really start with a distant third or a significant Labour voter swing to UKIP.

However, a win is not impossible, just unlikely.

Everybody Wins – Sounds ridiculous, but arguably the most likely scenario would see everybody happy and claiming a victory, or at least a moral one.

Tory’s hold the seat by a few points with UKIP a Labour on similar scores allows everybody to save face as Conservatives can claim the actual win, while UKIP will point to a massive increase in vote share and Labour promoting the strong gains in a difficult seat.

Conclusion – This could be a very close election and will go a long way to assessing UKIPs long-term success on the national stage, but it is difficult to look past a relatively easy Tory win, or as easy as can be expected when the former MP was forced to resign in disgrace.

However, we will have to wait until Friday morning to have any idea just how much the political landscape has changed.

First Tremors – How Well Did UKIP Really Do?

Without doubt there has been some kind of political seismic activity. A party with zero MPs, a record of racism accusations and just a single policy winning a national election is undeniably ground-breaking and historic.

Gaining 161 council seats and winning the European Parliament elections outright is nothing to be sniffed at and all three established parties in Westminister will need to urgently address the issues raised by this result.

However, doubts remain about whether or not this was the political earthquake promised by Nigel Farage.

Firstly however, it has to be said the turnout was the thing most would have found disappointing about this election.

Despite all the media attention aimed at the election, thanks largely to UKIP, just 34.19% of people made it to the polls, fewer than in 2009, although only by 0.6%, perhaps proving how little people care about getting out of Europe.

The low turnout is actually an interesting statistic with which to look at UKIPs overall performance.

On polls which only questioned those certain to vote, UKIP was commonly topping the poll on 32-35%, with Labour in second with a vote share in the high 20s.

However, assuming UKIP voters are diehard (and the facts do suggest this) this means the party’s vote share could be as much as 7.5% down on what would have been expected.

In the end UKIPs increase in vote share, of 10.99%, went up only a little more than Labours 9.67%.

You could argue this is down to voter apathy, a disinterest in European elections or disillusionment with politics in general, but it is a key indicator that UKIP did not do as well as maybe they would have hoped, or needed.

With a guaranteed higher turnout for the General Election, it could be argued the many people who would not consider voting UKIP, due to misplaced or accurate views of the party, will play a much larger role which could scupper UKIPs Westminster chances.

It is also worth noting that, despite an undoubtedly good campaign, UKIP only picked up 15.5% of the national vote in council elections, nearly half of its European Election vote share.

Another problem raised is how badly UKIP played in metropolitan areas and in particular London.

Across the country UKIP got 27.5% of the vote, but in London it was just 16.9%, about 40% lower.

UKIPs increase in vote share nationwide falls by a similar amount in the capital to barely over 6%.

While some would claim London is in its own bubble (they might have a point), UKIPs inability to make a breakthrough in the city should certainly be a cause for concern for Nigel Farage et al as it is hard to see them continuing their current momentum without carrying the big metropolitan areas.

There are key differences between the capital and the rest of the country, but as a Londoner myself I am proud my city bucked the nationwide trend.

It is not so much that London is in its own bubble, it is just the cosmopolitan atmosphere means the city is, in terms of social attitudes, ahead of the UK, a fact repeated in all major cities and towns.

Perhaps UKIP spokeswomen Suzanne Evans had a point when she said the party had difficulty appealing to the ‘educated, cultured and young’.

It is also interesting to note UKIP tended to do well in areas with high numbers of white British voters.

In Essex, one of the party’s breakthrough areas, the wards where they did well were made up of 80% from this demographic.

Conversely in London, with a high immigrant population and a place where the supposed effect of the EUs policy in this area should be acute, did not increase UKIPs number of MEPs and saw Labour make some big gains on councils.

Scotland similarly rejected UKIP, who got just 10.4%of the vote, although this was enough to elect UKIPs first European representative north of the boarder, but was a major drop on its overall vote haul.

This could be attributed to an independent Scotland’s desire to join the EU, but the lowlands and cities have seen a booming immigrant population and should perhaps be very representative of UKIPs vision of the EU at work.

Another problem facing UKIP is only just over half of those who voted for them in May 2014 will currently do the same in May 2015, with the majority heading back to the Conservatives, but seeing Labour and the Lib Dems regaining a much higher percentage of their deserters.

At a nationwide level it is pretty clear (and hardly surprising) they hurt the Tories more than the other parties.

UKIPs problem here is expanding their policy base.

It is easy for them to be different on Europe, but they will find it harder to differentiate themselves on taxation, health, education and all the other important national issues, particularly from the Conservatives.

Any talk of privatisation of the health service or flat rate taxation will lose them most of its Labour and Lib Dem defectors, while its Conservative supporters would have to vote blue to get the EU referendum, which UKIP certainly cannot offer.

You can also guarantee the other parties will be adjusting their ground game to combat this new threat and this tactic will certainly include exposing low attendance and dubious voting records of UKIP MEPs.

Sustained UKIP momentum is also required on a local level, with it taking many elections to take control of councils and this year’s good result plausibly based on it coinciding with the European Elections.

The fact is we will get a better understanding of UKIPs long terms success in just over a week’s time with the Newark by-election.

Given how this election came about and UKIPs surge they would expect to do well, although winning might be beyond their grip.

However, if they do not win they need a strong showing or a big surge in its vote share to prove they are now not just a European party, but a national one as well.

It will be fascinating to see the first polls come out.

European Elections – UKIP and All That Jazz

On Thursday people will head to the polls for what is being described as the most important European Elections in decades and the increased focus has generated a greater level of debate on what is an important topic for the UK.

Never in my lifetime has there been so much media coverage in the run-up to a European election and this rise can largely be put down to one man, Nigel Farage.

In fact, this blog is going to do something unexpected and praise UKIP (don’t worry we will revert to type shortly).

Regardless of your views of him, Mr Farage and UKIP have been instrumental in bringing the European question out of the third tier and put it front and centre and, while many might argue this is a problem in itself given the other issues we face today, it is an important question.

Democracy is all about engagement and when people do not turn up to vote, as they have historically not for the Euros, this can lead to a serious question of under-representation, where a candidate no longer has to appeal to a wide range of constituents.

Hopefully, the increased interest will lead to a greater turn-out of voters and drive the EU in the direction the majority of people want it to go.

Without a doubt, increased media coverage of these elections has been good for the UK, the EU and the potential future relationship of the two.

However, while the debate is a vital part of democracy, it is hard to escape the fact UKIP are increasing the level of debate and harming the process simultaneously.

The problem is, and here is where this blog reverts to type, UKIPs arguments are not based on facts, but on perception and are not focused on the real problems but are about singling out a scapegoat.

Immigration is a classic case in point and is the central theme of the purples campaign.

The average UKIP voter believes the foreign born population of this country to be about 38% of the total, while in fact it is just 13%, meaning the average UKIP voter is overstating the problem by nearly 200%.

UKIP claim the EU costs us £50 million a day, but conveniently chooses to ignore the rebate and the economic benefits from our membership.

The very notion of benefit fraud and health tourism has been proven to be so ridiculous even Mr Farage does not mention it any more.

A UKIP poster personified “EU policy at work” as an unemployed construction worker, when the Federation of Master Builders claims 25% of building firms are struggling to recruit enough.

Supposedly immigrants are causing wages to go down, but there is at best only circumstantial evidence to support this and lower wages in some industries are an inescapable part of being part of a free market, the same free market UKIP claims to support.

Another election poster claims 75% of our laws come from the EU, but UKIP have offered no evidence to support this, while the House of Commons Library, an independent organisation, calculated it would be hard to go over 50%.

All these unsubstantiated claims come on top of the fact Mr Farage has been an MEP for 15 years (he took his seat the same year I sat my GCSEs) and has done nothing to combat these issues and in fact has done very little of anything in the European Parliament except clocking up one of the worst attendance records in the chamber.

UKIP also claim our tax money is funding the celebrity lifestyle of bureaucrats, which is rank hypocrisy from a party who enthusiastically claim salary and expenses while not turning up to do the job we elected them to do.

Unfortunately this shines through in their voting record where they oppose, or more commonly abstain, on votes which could make people’s lives better and improve the EU as an institution.

This includes not turning up for a vote on abolishing mobile phone roaming charges, which would have been of huge benefit to the public and businesses of Great Britain, and this is just one of hundreds of examples where UKIP MEPs are elected to Brussels and do not represent you.

If there is a democratic deficit in the European Parliament it is not the fault of the EU, it is the fault of those MEPs who choose to take our money and ignore the benefits of legislation purely out of distain for an organisation they have no interest in reforming.

The most frustrating problem is UKIP have still not offered any kind of vision for what the UK is like if it does leave the EU, which for a party so hell-bent on leaving is at best strange and at worst is negligent.

This problem is best summed up by current polling, where, despite UKIPs surge, 54% of people want to stay in the EU.

What will the UKs status be outside the EU, how long will it take to renegotiate trade deals, will our focus be on Europe or emerging markets, how will we decide what immigrants we need, how many jobs will be lost in the short term, what will happen to foreign investment, what EU laws would the UK still have to follow and many other questions have not been answered.

This policy-gap is a continual problem with UKIP. Mr Farage has admitted the only policy ahead of these elections is leaving the EU. Seriously, how can you cast a vote for a party with just one policy and offering no insight on health, infrastructure, education or any other issue?

All of these questions arise even before you get to UKIPs and its questionable stance on worker’s rights, women’s rights and gay rights, its anti-environment standpoint and the despicable views and behaviour of some of its senior members.

No sensible person thinks the EU is functioning perfectly and this blog has said so in the past.

However getting the things we need, greater accountability, more transparency, closer trading rather than political ties and many other issues, are only hindered by voting UKIP and can only be achieved by electing those who want to make things better, not just line their own bed and point fingers.

The economic and social benefits we get from Europe are undeniable and the dues the UK gives to the EU are negligible compared to the financial benefits we get out, however, the debate is needed so we the voters can make sensible decisions based on facts, not assumptions.

Personally, UKIP does not represent a Britain I recognise or a future Britain I want to be a part of, but if you truly believe in what they say by all means cast your vote for them, but ask yourself do you want to elect someone who will represent you and your concerns and will work to make things better, or an anti-EU party whose MEPs cannot even be bothered to raise their hands.

So yes, while UKIP should be thanked for opening up the debate, the criticism aimed at them is more than valid, because the debate should be about the facts, not assumptions, and should deal with the real questions and issues surrounding the EU, not just scaremongering about Romanians moving in next door.

Robbing From the Rich – The Robin Hood Tax

A blow has been struck for the British banking industry as The European Court of Justice rejected a UK Treasury legal challenge against the so-called Robin Hood Tax, or Tobin Tax, but Chancellor George Osborne has nobody to blame but himself.

The tax, also known as the financial transaction tax, is a levy on all financial deals, such as the trading of shares and it is feared this will force the financial services industry to relocate to America and Asia where the tax does not exist.

However, when George Osborne went into bat for British bankers he forgot one thing. The reason this is in place is largely his fault.

The public have become increasingly frustrated about the fact the perpetrators of the financial crisis, otherwise known as the banks, have seemingly not been punished at all.

So far just a few bankers have faced criminal charges over their greed, speculation and dodgy trading, while the financial institutions have faced little or no action over their part in the economic disaster.

While government debt did not help the situation it was the banks fault the crisis occurred, the deficit issue exacerbated it, but was not the cause.

Unfortunately, while the public has been rightly demanding some action be taken over the institutions which led to the hardest-hitting recession in history their government has done what many previous governments have done and cozied-up to the city.

Getting deals on things like bankers pay, bonuses, transaction taxes and general regulation is not going to be easy and will require a global effort to ensure the financial institutions are not simply able to move location to avoid the scrutiny.

However, when people like Osborne dilly-dally on such an important issue, to the extent where we are six-years further on and tantamount to nothing has been done, it is hardly surprising when sketchy plans like the Robin Hood Tax are introduced.

Where has his leadership been on this issue?

It has to be accepted there are some genuine problems with the Tobin Tax.

Firstly it applies to every transaction, so ordinary people trading in shares as part of a pension fund or ISA are just as liable to get hit as a high-flying investment banker on a trading floor.

Secondly, the banking sector is very important to the UK and the risk of losing it to New York or Singapore is a very real possibility and could hit hard, but the fact they have remained largely unpunished for their role in the crisis means measures like a transaction tax are going to be very popular.

Lastly, while the banks could easily afford to cover the costs of this tax, the cost will undoubtedly be passed onto the consumers making loans, mortgages and saving in general more expensive.

I agree with the Chancellor this tax is potentially damaging to the city and the place of London as a financial centre, but where are his proposals to ensure another financial crash does not occur and to punish the bankers who caused it?

There is no benefit is calling foul when legislation is passed on something you don’t like when you have not proposed any alternatives.

Yes, the tax is questionable, but when you do nothing you cannot be surprised when something like this has popular support and ends up being law.

This will be the subject of future legal challenges, but is Osborne wants to overturn it he has to make a better argument than it is bad for the city and offer alternatives to satisfy the public as well as the square mile.

For Harry and England – The Relevance of St George

Flag of St George, copyright Steve Webster

Today is the 23rd of April, the day when England celebrates its patron saint, a man not even born in England who is famous because he killed a mythical beast.

Admittedly, this has never been as big a deal as our cousins from the emerald isle raising a glass of the black stuff to St Patrick, but in recent years many have tried to increase the significance of this day in the name of national pride.

This usually involves bars and pubs bedecking themselves in white bunting baring the red cross and serving pints of real ale.

Even the Prime Minister has been getting in on the action this year.

David Cameron said: “St George has been England’s patron saint since 1350, but for too long, his feast day – England’s national day – has been overlooked.”

However, is this all not slightly ridiculous and archaic?

St George can thank his status in this country to Edward III, who marched on Scotland carrying the famous red cross in the 14^th century.

Nearly a hundred years later, following the Battle of Agincourt, his feast day was made a national holiday.

As previously mentioned, however, St George was not even English, in fact England is not even the only country he is patron saint of.

Germany, Greece, Portugal, Lithuania, Georgia, Catalonia and Palestine celebrate him.

He is even the patron saint of, among other things, soldiers, archers, the Scouts, herpes, leprosy, plague and syphilis. No, you did not misread that.

As a symbol of national pride are we really saying we can find nobody better to represent modern, diverse English values?

Put it this way, 23 April is also William Shakespeare’s birthday, a genuine British icon who never had to rely on mythology to become one of the Greatest Britons.

Interestingly, the place of St George mainly comes down to another debate raging in the last couple of weeks, the UKs position as a Christian country.

When St George was first adopted by this country, or perhaps given his heritage we should call him a refugee, he was heralded as a martyr who was killed for speaking out against the Emperor Diocletian’s torture of Christians.

Historically England and the UK as a whole is a Christian nation (as long as you ignore our early flirtation with Paganism) and our society is based (loosely) on Christian values, but is it real fair to say modern Britain is a Christian country?

Between 2001 and 2011 censuses the percentage of people describing themselves as Christian fell from 71.7% to 59.3%, while those describing themselves as of no religion went up from 14.8% to 25.1%.

These statistics show the majority of people in the UK classify themselves as Christian, but this badly misrepresents what British people view as being Christian in a modern context.

Today the church does not hold the same significance in day-to-day life and while we should not ignore our history it is really fair to say we are a Christian nation in the strictest sense of the word?

The teachings of tolerance of understanding are something we should certainly take into account, perhaps now more than ever, but let’s not pretend these are exclusively Christian ideas.

Our world views are now dictated much less by the influence of the church and more by a wider understanding of the world and science.

This is not to say we should not be proud of our Christian heritage, but it is just that, heritage.

We are no longer a country of religious fanatics who rode off to fight the crusades, we are a tolerant forward-thinking nation which is capable of basing its decisions on more than just the teaching of the church.

With this in mind is it really right that a Palestinian-born patron saint of sexual transmitted diseases should be used as a symbol of psudo-nationalism, a man who throughout history has been used as a call-to-arms in this country, normally to go and fight another Christian nation.

In this great country can we really not come up with somebody more worthy, more relevant to our modern world than someone whose most notable achievement was killing a fictional animal?

We should be proud of this country and its heritage, Christian or not.

We should be honoured to be English, British and members of the United Kingdom.

We should remember this country’s history, but not let our history govern our future.

Outpourings of national pride and patriotism should not be criticised, but St George does not embody a modern Britain I recognise.

Today is William Shakespeare’s birthday and to my mind this is far more worthy of celebration as are the thousands of Englishmen and women who have made this country what it is.

There are many great people, born in this country and not quasi-fictional, who have done wonderful things, who in different and more relevant ways represent a modern England, an open and tolerant England and do not cling to these antiquated notions of what patriotism is.

Patriotism is about more than donning a flag and thumping your chest, it is about being proud of who you are, where you are from and what your country has and can still yet achieve.

Let us celebrate being English and British by celebrating those worthy of admiration, not those who image has been bastardised in the name of war-mongering national pride.

In, Out, In, Out - The European Question

The European Union is one of the most divisive arguments in British politics and has once again been pushed front and centre by the televised debates between Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and UKIP frontman Nigel Farage.

According to the subsequent YouGov polls Farage emerged the clear winner of the first debate, where facts took second place to grandstanding and rhetoric.

This blog is, as anyone who has read it will know, unashamedly pro-European, but this is not to say it stands by how the EU currently operates. In fact reform of the EU is desperately required, but this should be done with the UK at the top-table, not as an outsider.

The main focus of these reforms should be to return the EU to something closer to its original conception as a trading block. Unfortunately, the EU itself has become far to political and the fears of Eurosceptic’s about powers being delegated away from the country’s parliament do certainly have some validity.

Currently, we can only assume David Cameron holds a similar view-point, with the Prime Minister determined to renegotiate certain treaty aspects with the EU before holding a referendum in 2017, if he is re-elected, but the public still have no idea about what powers will be put on the table.

While certainly not directly opposed to a referendum in 2017, after all it has been many decades since the voting public were given a say on this issue, the main problem is the confusion and doubt this has the potential to cause, not to mention the issues arising if the UK votes to leave.

The pro-European argument centres on one of the big issues of the day, the economy and jobs, and this remains the key reason for wanting to remain as a central member of the club.

While the 3 million job losses figure used by Nick Clegg is certainly questionable, a recent report by the Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) suggests 4.2 million jobs are currently supported by the UK exporting to the EU.

The CEBR does not go as far as to claim 4.2 million jobs will be lost if the UK leaves, but it is hard to imagine a situation where a UK exit does not cost jobs.

A good example of this is the head of Nissan, who said the Japanese car giant would have to seriously consider relocating its manufacturing base to continental Europe if the UK were to leave.

It would be easy to claim this is just big business towing the line, but why would Nissan choose to stay in the event of a UK exit?

The population of Europe is around 485 million people, with the UK accounting for about 70 million of that total, meaning there is many times the number of consumers on the mainland than there are in Britain.

With this in mind, and taking into account the confusion a referendum would bring, Nissan and any other company associated with the import export market would, at the very least, need to plan for a move to the continent.

Some would choose to leave, others might risk staying to see what deal a UK government independent of the EU could achieve on trade, but either way jobs would be put at risk.

Then take into account how long it would realistically take the UK to negotiate trade deals, not just with the EU, but India, China, USA, Russia, Brazil and the dozens of other major trading nations worldwide.

Trade deals, however, would prove problematic as again we have to accept we have a small percentage of the EUs overall consumers, so countries know they will get a better deal from talks with the EU than an independent UK.

If a UK exit resulted in Germany and France similarly ditching the experiment then fine, but this is an unlikely scenario.

Even if the UK could get a good trade deals, something which is certainly not guaranteed, it could take years, if not decades to iron out all the details, leaving the UK with a government unable to do anything of purpose during the interim period.

Yes, the UK might eventually reclaim some of the jobs lost due to the exit, but there is no guarantee they would come back or how long it might take, leading to the nightmare scenario of large scale unemployment and negligible growth for the foreseeable future.

This scenario does not just account for car manufacturers or import/ export based companies.

The UKs financial sector contributes billions to the exchequer in corporation and income tax, not to mention making the UK an obvious centre for international businesses looking to trade with Europe.

If a referendum is called there would be untold fluctuations in the stock and currency markets as brokers try to second guess what the outcome will be, not to mention the fact many of the financial institutions would similarly be forced to consider moving to Germany.

This is not scare-mongering, this is the reality of the UK contemplating leaving the EU.

This country has already seen how disruptive major referendums can be, with the Scottish independence vote causing problems despite the fact it is unlikely Scotland will vote to leave the UK.

However, it would be naive to think the out campaign did not have some validity, in fact even some of the most disliked groups, such as the English Defence League, have at the centre of their argument a sensible point.

Yes, unlimited mass immigration is a problem, but the facts simply do not back up the case.

Farage claimed during the debate that the entire population of Europe has the right to come to Britain and while he is technically right this totally misses the point.

Why would the entire population of Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and every other EU country suddenly move to the UK? This would be so economically counter-productive that the idea is almost laughable.

Similarly there is no evidence for benefit tourism, in fact immigrants put in far more to the government coffers than they take out and in fact contribute a higher percentage than British people.

There are of course some problems, such as the undercutting of wage, cash in hand work, non-payment of taxes, overcrowding in rental properties and bed-sharing.

However, the best way to deal with these things is to attack the cause of the problem, not by demonising immigrants, as this benefits everyone in the UK.

It is wrong companies can get away with paying immigrants below the minimum wage and undercut UK workers, but this should be dealt with by dealing with the companies paying low salaries, not by restricting immigration.

Similarly the non-payment of tax, or cash work is also the fault of the businesses operating in this way, not the people who take the work.

UKIP recently floated a policy which said immigrants should be forced to pay into the tax system before being allowed into the country as to many were taking cash-in-hand work.

On the face of it this seems quite logical if you are worried about tax evasion, but the problem here is if a company is unscrupulous enough to pay immigrant workers in this way why would they not similarly pay British workers in cash?

What the companies in these situations are doing is wrong both legally and ethically, so the clampdown should be on these businesses not on the immigrants.

The same goes for overcrowding in rented properties.

Obviously the fact immigrants are willing and able to cram themselves into properties and bed-share is not the fault of the people living in the properties, but the landlords who are renting them.

Landlords simply take advantage of the situation. Rent is taken in cash and not declared to the Inland Revenue and the property is not maintained because the owner does not need to meet the more exacting standards or UK born renters.

For years those living in the rental market, including UK citizens, have complained about the way private landlords behave, but these complaints have been dismissed as undue interference in a private market.

What this comes down to is the negative impact we associate with an immigrant population are not actually the fault of the immigrant population, but caused by those who employ and house them.

Yes, we need immigrants to contribute to society, to pay for the NHS, schools and other public services, but it is the way they are treated by employers and landlords which result in the negative impact we associate with an immigrant population.

If all companies paid the minimum wage and all landlords abided by basic housing standards, there would not be the pressure on low wages so often seen as a by-product of a cheap labour influx.

In fact, economists of all political leanings agree a level of immigration is not only beneficial, but essential for growth and a key indicator of a growing economy.

One of the greatest pressures currently facing the UK is not jobs or public service provision, but an aging population.

The immigrants coming to this country are young people, exactly the generation we need to encourage to prop-up the social costs of helping our older generations enjoy their retirement.

Conveniently, this does bring us onto the overcrowding issue, the argument about Britain being basically full and not able to accept any more people.

While this, like so many of the other arguments, is valid, it again misses the point.

For starters, the fact the UKs indigenous population is aging means there is a massive short-fall of younger people, a place now being taken by migrants and those who come over here, work hard and pay taxes should be welcomed with open arms.

Secondly, there has been massive under-building in this country for decades in terms of schools, hospitals and housing and if it takes an influx of Eastern Europeans for the government and developers to notice this then so be it.

Lastly, all available data, and remember The UK has a long history of immigrant populations, suggests the levels naturally even out.

In recent years, for example, it has been shown Polish people tend not to settle in the UK for the long-term, but contribute to the UKs economy before returning to their homeland to help improve the prospects of poorer European countries, particularly if their country of origins economy starts to pick up.

This trend is well established, having been seen already from immigrants coming from commonwealth countries and parts of the British Empire.

On a related point, we often forget the EU open boarder rules work both ways, allowing UK residents to easily move from their home to work and set-up businesses all across Europe, benefiting the people of the continent as a whole.

In fact the number of UK residents currently living abroad is similar to the number of Eastern European migrants currently estimated to be in the UK.

The one thing I personally found striking about the EU debate last week was how Farage has no answers on the big questions.

Yes, he has a position on the key issues such as immigration and EU membership costs, but he is unable to provide any answers on the big-issues and it is probably best to not even mention his Putin-supporting foreign policy.

As a leader of a less-significant national party it is hard to blame him for this, but in the European elections he is the leader of a front-runner and should be able to provide more details on how a UK exit would affect employment rates, the import/ export market, UK-based financial institutions and how long it would take the UK to renegotiate trade deals.

For better or worse the UK is in the EU and even contemplating an exit has the potential to bring chaos and uncertainty to what is still a very fragile recovery and jobs market.

Yes, there is too much bureaucracy and waste in the EU and the UK does not always get the best out of trade deals, but this is best solved by ensuring the UK is a significant member of the club, a proud voice standing up for what the UK and Europe needs, not an isolationist nation.

The best way to achieve this is by electing MEPs who care about this country’s position in Europe, not Eurosceptic’s whose main goal is to make themselves unemployed.

And It’s Go, Go, Go! – 2014 F1 Preview

Barely four months ago Sebastian Vettel took the checkered flag at Interlagos, to wrap up a sensational second half of the season for the German, collecting his ninth consecutive win and fourth world title.

However, just 112 days later the drivers and teams are getting ready to turn their wheels in anger yet again as what promises to be an intriguing F1 season gets underway in Melbourne.

The same eleven teams will line up on the Australian grid and there are a few new faces, or familiar ones in different cars, but it is the rule changes and the disrupted pre-season testing which is gaining the most column inches in the run-up to the season opener.

So what can we expect from this new campaign and who will emerge triumphant in Abu Dhabi at the end of November?

The Inquisitive Panda takes a look at what could be the determining factors.

Reliability

With the massive rule changes and lack of pre-season testing (particularly for some teams) getting to the end of the race might be the first big hurdle for many teams.

Even those with miles under their belt in Jerez and Bahrain will be casting nervous eyes over their computer read-outs during the early rounds looking for the first hint of technical problems.

However, any team who can get from start to finish and pick up early points will be in a good position come the alter rounds.

This brings to mind Jenson Button’s championship winning seasons with Brawn where the British driver won six of the first seven races, did not stand on the top of the podium again all season, but still collected the drivers trophy at the end of the season.

Mercedes, or at least the Mercedes powered teams, look to be in the best shape so if any of their drivers can string together a series of wins early on, while the others are struggling to complete races, then they will be in great shape for the rest of the year.

ERS, the replacement system for KERS, will be even more important this year thanks to the increased power boost the energy recovery systems will generate this season, so the dreaded “you have no KERS” message will be pertinent this year.

Development

Although reliability will be the focus of the early rounds, development will be just as, if not more, important this year than ever before.

F1 has never been a sport to stand still and the winning team is often the one who provides the best upgrades at the opportune moments during the season.

This is especially true for the teams expected to struggle early on, such as Red Bull and Toro Rosso.

The F1 circus returns to Europe early in May, which is where teams would normally start to make substantial changes to the vehicles, but it would surprise nobody if alterations were already being made in Malaysia two-weeks after Melbourne.

Assuming pre-season testing has not lied to everyone, Red Bull and the other Renault powered cars will need to satisfy themselves with what they can get early on and focus on bringing in the right upgrades at the right circuits to pick up larger points hauls later on.

Engines

A major thorn in the side of team principles and race engineers this year, with the reliability problems, is going to be the use of engines.

Just five power units are available to each team for the entire season and this could cause major headaches if teams loose engines early on.

In the recent, uber-reliable seasons teams could judge how hard and long an engine could be pushed, calculating when to ditch it to get the most benefits from a new unit at certain tracks.

However, a couple of blow-outs in the first few rounds and teams might not have the luxury of brand new engines for the fast tracks at Silverstone, Spa and Monza.

Smooth Driving

Reliability might be causing the more obvious headaches, but efficient running is also going to be a major challenge for the drivers and teams to circumnavigate as the entire motorsport fraternity is pushed towards a more environmentally friendly outlook.

Tyres are still strictly limited, while the amount of fuel each car gets has been heavily reduced.

This should benefit smooth drivers who are not as heavy on tyres or fuel consumption and generally put less pressure on the cars components.

While attack minded drivers, such as Hamilton and Grosjean, might struggle, their polar opposites, like Button and Hulkenberg, could do very well.

Qualifying

In a pleasing move, the F1 authorities have decided to shake-up Qualifying 3 (Q3), otherwise known as the pole position shoot-out.

The top-ten will now start on the tyres used in Q2, not Q3, and any teams qualifying for, but not competing in, Q3 will have grid position based on their Q2 time, not race number.

This, along with the new pole position trophy, awarded to the driver with the most pole starts during a season, should increase activity during the final qualifying period and stop teams settling for a top-ten start rather than wasting another set of tyres.

As the season continues qualifying should regain some of its drama, often lacking last season, but early on teams will probably focus more on getting a car to the end of the race rather than a good starting position.

Rookies

There are certainly not many new faces on the grid this season so discussing rookies is a little redundant, but one name did leap out of the pre-season timing boards, Kevin Magnussen.

The young Finn impressed greatly in the McLaren and it will be interesting to see how he gets on in the early rounds when the Mercedes powered cars are expected to do well.

Daniel Ricciardo will also be looking for a big first season in the Red Bull, but might have to wait a few races before he gets to show what he is capable of.

Wiser Heads

With the rule changes this is probably a season for the more mature heads of the F1 grid, whose experience will tell them picking up some points is more important than crashing going for a win.

With both entering the twilight of their careers, it will be interesting to see how the Ferrari pairing of Alonso and Raikkonen get on.

Massa, who left the Scuderia for Williams, has been looking very fast pre-season and a few good results could see the Grove-based get back to their former glory.

Button, as previously mentioned, is also worth looking out for as the voice of experience in a seemingly rejuvenated McLaren team.

Backmarkers

Many pundits have been critical of Caterham and Marussia over the last couple of years claiming both of the new teams have made little progress.

While this might be true, the major rule changes give both outfits the chance to pick up some points, cash and sponsorship in the early rounds.

With reliability such a worry, any team able to complete race distance could be in with a shot of points.

Kobayashi at Caterham certainly knows the series, but is also known for outrageous overtaking manoeuvres, which might not be available to him this year, so it will be interesting to see if the Japanese driver has matured during his sabbatical.

Midfield

As with may F1 seasons, the really interesting battles take place not at the front, but for the smaller points places with the likes of Sauber, Force India, Williams and Toro Rosso looking to cash in on television time and sponsorship money.

Williams look to have a strong package this year and could compete a little higher up the grid, although predictions of Massa and Bottas challenging for race wins might be a little farfetched.

The main question is which, if any, of the front-runners drop off the pace and start to come into the reaches of the main pack and if any of the midfielders fall into the clutches of the backmarkers.

If any of these teams are going to cause a stir and punch above their weight this season they will have to be on form straight from the get-go in Australia and maximise the early-season confusion as teams get to grip with new technology.

Front Runners

Mercedes and McLaren both looked strong during pre-season, while Ferrari and Lotus are both still relatively unknown quantities, with the Prancing Horses looking a little inconsistent and the tusk-nosed Lotus not appearing at the first test.

Red Bull on the other hand had a well-publicised nightmare and will be keen to show this counts for nothing during the early races.

What will be fascinating during the first half of the season is to see if one driver is able to build up a substantial points cushion, or if a variety of drivers will be standing on the podium at each race.

Titles

It is difficult to look past Mercedes for the constructors’ championship this season. Pre-season suggests they have the strongest package straight out of the gate, which should lead to some good early points hauls and, assuming development goes well, this should see them through to the end.

The drivers’ title is harder to call, with Hamilton currently the bookies favourite, a claim it is hard to argue with.

However, agreeing with the bookies would be dull and although Hamilton is certainly in the mix, do not write off his Mercedes teammate Rosberg.

With Buttons experience and Magnussen’s natural pace it will certainly be interesting to see how both fare in the early rounds.

Ferrari might not have set the world on fire, for several season, but with two world champions in the Marranello outfits cars they will certainly be in the mix.

One final prediction. Write off Vettel at your own risk.

Race of the Year

Every F1 fan looks forward to certain races each year, with the Monaco, Canadian, British, Belgian and Italian Grand Prix’s normally firm fan favourites.

However, this season the Australian Grand Prix, purely by virtue of being first on the calendar, could be very exciting to watch, while the return of the circuit formally known as the A1 Ring and the new entry from Russia will be of particular interest.

Surprise of the Year

How competitive Red Bull is even early on. With Adrian Newey and Christian Horner you have two of the best technical minds in motorsport, while Vettel has proved over four consecutive seasons how good a driver he really is.

While they might not be at the front down under, expect them to up there come the end of the season.

Also expect the ridiculous double points system in Abu Dhabi not to make a blind bit of difference to who wins the title.

It will also be interesting to see how far into the season the first legal challenge about a piece of technology is launched. These court cases have blighted the sport over the last few years, as teams indulge in competitive one-upmanship so teams cannot benefit from newly developed parts.

Conclusion

With the rule changes and the sheer quality of drivers on display there is a palpable excitement surrounding the start of the season.

Australia will set the benchmark and before the cars take the chequered flag on Sunday we can only speculate what the outcomes will be.

New technology and regulation will always lead to confusion so expect some surprises during qualifying and the races in the early rounds before everything settles down into a more predictable format as the season progresses.